Hi Christine,
Thank you for comments!
> Yes, I think I can see what's happening here. JOIN messages get
> discarded during flushing because that can cause entry into GATHER state
> at an inappropriate time. For a normal JOIN message that's fine because
> the joining node will re-send the message. But this also causes LEAVE
> messages to be discarded too (as they are a special case of JOIN). This
> causes the error you are seeing.
>
> The fix is non-trivial, sadly, but I'm looking into it
Possibly I think that the correction for this problem is big.
However, we wish the secession of this node is not judged with trouble. We hope fix it....
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc:
> Date: 2015/3/10, Tue 21:55
> Subject: Re: It is sometimes judged to be node trouble.
>
> On 09/03/15 01:09, renayama19661014@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We constitute a cluster in corosync.
>> We shutdown one node afterwards.
>>
>> Then the node that we shutdown is sometimes judged with fail by a cluster.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Oct 21 11:03:30 XXX corosync[21677]: [TOTEM ] A processor failed, forming
> new configuration.
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>> This phenomenon seems to occur with very low probability.
>>
>> We think that it is a problem that there is the log that the node that we
> shutdown is taken as trouble.
>>
>> The problem is because the leave message(memb_leave_message_send) which is
> sent when a user stops corosync may be thrown away.
>>
>> static int net_deliver_fn (
>> int fd,
>> int revents,
>> void *data)
>> {
>> struct totemudp_instance *instance = (struct totemudp_instance *)data;
>> struct msghdr msg_recv;
>> struct iovec *iovec;
>> (snip)
>> /*
>> * Drop all non-mcast messages (more specifically join
>> * messages should be dropped)
>> */
>> message_type = (char *)iovec->iov_base;
>> if (instance->flushing == 1 && *message_type ==
> MESSAGE_TYPE_MEMB_JOIN) {
>> iovec->iov_len = FRAME_SIZE_MAX;
>> return (0);
>> }
>> (snip)
>>
>> A secession leave is handled definitely and wishes a node stops.
>> Is the correction of the handling of problem of corosync possible?
>> * We think that it is a problem that there is the log that the node that
> we shutdown is taken as trouble.
>
> Yes, I think I can see what's happening here. JOIN messages get
> discarded during flushing because that can cause entry into GATHER state
> at an inappropriate time. For a normal JOIN message that's fine because
> the joining node will re-send the message. But this also causes LEAVE
> messages to be discarded too (as they are a special case of JOIN). This
> causes the error you are seeing.
>
> The fix is non-trivial, sadly, but I'm looking into it
>
> Thanks for the report!
>
> Chrissie
>
>
>
>> We hope that this problem is revised in the next version if possible.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Hideo Yamauchi.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
